Personally I feel that it is unfair...What about the ppl who had no choice and were born with it ...You can't blame them for trying to come to America maybe we have medical capabilities that they don't have in their country.It is simply unfair.

well... it's confusing, but at the same time those persons are not US citizens. The US government is only responsible to its citizens. By admitting a person infected with HIV/AIDS, they are placing their own population at more risk than it already is. Now this isn't a fair practice, but as everyone in this forum knows, life isn't fair.

On the flip side of the coin, at this point it is possible for an individual infected with HIV/AIDS to be a productive member of society, and to prevent the infection of others.

This is not a straight forward issue, and both sides need to be looked at before just jumping to the "THE US IS BEING BAD AGAIN" knee-jerk reaction. After all the government is doing it for us.

what about people who got it(hiv) in the us and then went home they can t enter either, along with all the other bullthat they have to provide before visiting the useven if its just for passing thru on their way to another destination

This US policy is antiquated and based off of 1980's understanding and knowledge of HIV care and pathogenosis of the virus...that knowledge has since grown...and this legislation should be reviewed/repealed...

"The heinous HIV travel and immigration ban was codified in law as part of the NIH reauthorization in 1993 (s.1/h.r 4), the NIH's reauthorization act (entitled the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993).

However, remember that well before 1993, this ban made world news when a Dutch PWA (Hans Paul Verhoff) was denied entry into the U.S. in 1989 to speak at a conference in San Francisco and this same ban was the cause of the massive boycott of the 6th International Conference on AIDS in SF in 1990.

It was on this ban that caused the '92 International AIDS Conference to be moved from Boston to Amsterdam. It was at the see aegis website Tomas Fabregas Obituary Amsterdam AIDS Conference that activists, ACT UP chapters, and Elizabeth Taylor hosted a press conference flaunting Tomas Fabregas' re-entry into the U.S. as a resident PWA. "

DCEric saidwell... it's confusing, but at the same time those persons are not US citizens. The US government is only responsible to its citizens. By admitting a person infected with HIV/AIDS, they are placing their own population at more risk than it already is. Now this isn't a fair practice, but as everyone in this forum knows, life isn't fair.

On the flip side of the coin, at this point it is possible for an individual infected with HIV/AIDS to be a productive member of society, and to prevent the infection of others.

This is not a straight forward issue, and both sides need to be looked at before just jumping to the "THE US IS BEING BAD AGAIN" knee-jerk reaction. After all the government is doing it for us.

In this case the government isn't doing too much. If you take it from a public health standpoint, hepatitis is on the rise, TB is on the rise here and across the country. This antiquated regulation just needs to be done away with already because it's not exactly "containing" the spread of HIV. It just adds to a stigma... I read awhile ago about this rule being done away with. I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet.

I never said it was right or was working. I said what the goal was. I would rather a country that shut out HIV/AIDS victims than one that shut out aid. *cough*myanmar*cough* HIV/AIDS is a dangerous thing, it is worse than Ebola. worse than Polio. If the government makes a few missteps along the way, but means well, I find that acceptable.

DCEric saidI never said it was right or was working. I said what the goal was. I would rather a country that shut out HIV/AIDS victims than one that shut out aid. *cough*myanmar*cough* HIV/AIDS is a dangerous thing, it is worse than Ebola. worse than Polio. If the government makes a few missteps along the way, but means well, I find that acceptable.

um.... do you know what ebola does to the body? there's also no cure or real treatment for it aside from just treating symptoms..

back then, yeah it could have been justified. they didn't have a grasp of how it was transmitted or any meaningful treatment. fine. the policy is out of touch with how far the world has advanced though so its policies need to keep up.

i'll ignore your comment about missteps being okay as long as they mean well..

DCEric saidI never said it was right or was working. I said what the goal was. I would rather a country that shut out HIV/AIDS victims than one that shut out aid. *cough*myanmar*cough* HIV/AIDS is a dangerous thing, it is worse than Ebola. worse than Polio. If the government makes a few missteps along the way, but means well, I find that acceptable.

You do know that Ebola makes you bleed from every orifice and essentially hemorrhage and shit yourself to death within the course of a week or less? It's also highly contagious between humans and has even show the capacity for airborne transmission between lesser primates in a laboratory setting. And you think HIV is worse? People as ignorant as you need to Darwin yourselves out of our collective misery by catching Ebola to demonstrate how benign it is in comparison to HIV.

Seriously. I've heard some outstandingly ignorant things said by some amazingly ignorant people on this topic. You, however, have now been officially nominated as the dumbest person in the history of ever. If you win this round you'll go on to compete against Anna Nicole Smith for the grand prize. Even dead, I still think she might be smarter than you.

DCEric saidwell... it's confusing, but at the same time those persons are not US citizens. The US government is only responsible to its citizens. By admitting a person infected with HIV/AIDS, they are placing their own population at more risk than it already is. Now this isn't a fair practice, but as everyone in this forum knows, life isn't fair.

this ruling by US passport control is nothing but Biggotry and ignorance or do you assume every gay man is a) promiscuous or b) stupid when it comes to managing their status? A statement like that you may as well go and pay money into the coffers of Phelp's brigade!

Mind you the whole information sharing issue is enough to put me off ever coming there again. For various reasons I wont go into in public (a stupid indiscretion when I was younger) I had to get a visa last time I went to the US as was inelgible for a Visa Waiver. Yet on arriving I was still humiliated in front of everyone. Border guards in the US treat everyone like criminals, I know they have their jobs to do but they should learn manners like the rest of the world and not be up their own arses so much.

I spent some time trying to come up with any solid, objective, worthwhile justifications to the current US policy but ended up coming way short. I had no idea such a ban even existed, and while I can understand its origins at the time when information on HIV was still a bit sketchy, such times have passed and it is time for this ban to come to an end.

You do know that Ebola makes you bleed from every orifice and essentially hemorrhage and shit yourself to death within the course of a week or less? It's also highly contagious between humans and has even show the capacity for airborne transmission between lesser primates in a laboratory setting. And you think HIV is worse? People as ignorant as you need to Darwin yourselves out of our collective misery by catching Ebola to demonstrate how benign it is in comparison to HIV.

Seriously. I've heard some outstandingly ignorant things said by some amazingly ignorant people on this topic. You, however, have now been officially nominated as the dumbest person in the history of ever. If you win this round you'll go on to compete against Anna Nicole Smith for the grand prize. Even dead, I still think she might be smarter than you. [/quote]

Actually Ebola is only dangerous to the individual... not the species. It burns itself out so quickly only a handful are ever impacted. Ultimately it kills faster than it can spread, killing a concentrated group of people. A village, 200-300 die in an outbreak. HIV/AIDS has only had one known outbreak, and it isn't over yet. HIV/AIDS is far more dangerous because the host has time to transfer it.

I know very well what Ebola does to the body. Clearly none of you were in the DC area when our outbreak happened. luckily only three people were infected, and none died. The Hot Zone. Read it.

Once again, I did not say it was right. I did not say it was reasonable. I said it was an attempt to protect the citizens. I never said anything about homosexuality. I never said anything about frequency of the chance of sexual partners. I only said the US government has a responsibility to its people to protect us. That doesn't always lead to the best, or most fair solution, or even one I agree with. I made the argument that this was an attempt at a way of protecting lives. It has unquestionably failed. It was unquestionably unfair to the victims of HIV/AIDS. But to the person at the CDC and Immigration Control it probably once made sense. If someone has a life threatening disease that is easily spread they should not be allowed the chance to spread it within the United States.

Actually Ebola is only dangerous to the individual... not the species. It burns itself out so quickly only a handful are ever impacted. Ultimately it kills faster than it can spread, killing a concentrated group of people. A village, 200-300 die in an outbreak. HIV/AIDS has only had one known outbreak, and it isn't over yet. HIV/AIDS is far more dangerous because the host has time to transfer it.

I know very well what Ebola does to the body. Clearly none of you were in the DC area when our outbreak happened. luckily only three people were infected, and none died. The Hot Zone. Read it.

Once again, I did not say it was right. I did not say it was reasonable. I said it was an attempt to protect the citizens. I never said anything about homosexuality. I never said anything about frequency of the chance of sexual partners. I only said the US government has a responsibility to its people to protect us. That doesn't always lead to the best, or most fair solution, or even one I agree with. I made the argument that this was an attempt at a way of protecting lives. It has unquestionably failed. It was unquestionably unfair to the victims of HIV/AIDS. But to the person at the CDC and Immigration Control it probably once made sense. If someone has a life threatening disease that is easily spread they should not be allowed the chance to spread it within the United States.

ebola-reston, the strain that infected a couple monkeys in virginia and three or four handlers, isn't fatal to humans. if ebola-zaire were to be introduced into the DC area, it would be a different story.

HIV is dangerous but, for lack of a better word, it's manageable. there can also be an active decision made on the part of the carrier to not engage in high risk behavior that would lead to further infection. ebola carriers don't have that choice.

We didn't know that at the time, and we learned more than we wanted to about Ebola-Zaire, Ebola-Sudan and Marburg. That was a terrifying week before anyone had a clue what was going on, and I don't need to explain what the media were doing with their broadcasts of people "crashing and bleeding out".

Manageable and HIV/AIDS should never be used in the same sentence.

My work is in Africa, South and Southeast Asia. The words HIV/AIDS and manageable have many years left before they are connected. The AIDS Highway continues to decimate more and more people. Truck drivers in India continue to shop for prostitutes in remote villages along the golden quadrangle and in Southeast Asia, the trade in human beings -infected and not- continues to boom.

Within the borders of Washington DC as many as 1 in 10 residence are infected. That is projected to grow in the next decade.

There is no way around it, at best the wealthy governments of the word have brought HIV/AIDS to a draw within their borders, the developing and undeveloped world are loosing ground. The majority of people that are spreading HIV/AIDS don't know they carry it, so they cannot choose to prevent its spread. Again, more dangerous than Ebola. (Well, like you said other than Ebola-Reston.)

I repeat my previous statement: The US government has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

I believe we (Americans) are at greater risk from our open borders to the north and south compared to those with HIV coming from Europe -- even considering the 'public health' scope. Undocumented aliens are just coming through and they could be bringing anything with them, HIV included. The US government does have a responsibility to protect its citizens, but I fail to see how this is done effectively considering such an incomplete plan of defense that leaves the most dangerous routes open.

DCEric saidWe didn't know that at the time, and we learned more than we wanted to about Ebola-Zaire, Ebola-Sudan and Marburg. That was a terrifying week before anyone had a clue what was going on, and I don't need to explain what the media were doing with their broadcasts of people "crashing and bleeding out".

Manageable and HIV/AIDS should never be used in the same sentence.

My work is in Africa, South and Southeast Asia. The words HIV/AIDS and manageable have many years left before they are connected. The AIDS Highway continues to decimate more and more people. Truck drivers in India continue to shop for prostitutes in remote villages along the golden quadrangle and in Southeast Asia, the trade in human beings -infected and not- continues to boom.

Within the borders of Washington DC as many as 1 in 10 residence are infected. That is projected to grow in the next decade.

There is no way around it, at best the wealthy governments of the word have brought HIV/AIDS to a draw within their borders, the developing and undeveloped world are loosing ground.

I repeat my previous statement: The US government has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

I'm not quite sure what you think the US government is still protecting us from though. The number of people living with HIV isn't growing because of foreigners coming over and infecting us. also the bush administrations stance on sex ed sure isn't helping. tack on an emerging generation of gays who think that hiv is curable or not a big deal. it is manageable though (i do use that term cautiously) because people can do pretty well on the meds. theres definitely issues with drug resistance, side effects and compliance but overall quality of life has improved. given all of that, i stand by my previous statement that this policy is outdated and needs to be done away with. the CDC and institute of health have bigger things to worry about.

Agreed, but the government needs to be doing something... and I will take one that makes a move to protect me over one that refuses to give out aid. The policy is outdated, while the threat continues from the outside, if (and that is a huge if) things are gotten under control again within the US, do we at that point bring back those currently outdated controls? In that ideal situation, the US comes up with a way to cure people before the rest of the world. Comes up with a way to diagnose HIV/AIDS quickly AND manages to get the meds into the hands of the people who need them... would those controls make sense again? Does it make sense that we block people who had SARS? Polio? Yellow Fever? These diseases have no cure also.